User talk:Captainmike/archive 2
(User talk:Captainmike/archive) "List of..." I think there might be some value to all of our list of articles shortening their title -- since there is very rarely an article with a plural title, every single "List of" article could have those two words removed and become its root subject, making it easier to conversationally link to ("numerous military conflicts..." over "numerous military conflicts...," for example), and also easier to tabulate alphabetically (The Cardassian article would list links to Cardassian ranks, Cardassian history, Cardassian starships, etc -- a standard form for associating subarticles -- the lists will fit fine into the shorter and preferably simpler termed article name), and evolve to correspond or redirect to a list category. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 01:04, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) : I'll buy that. Just say 'when' and I'll help with the move. --Gvsualan 20:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC) ::I'm going to append this to Memory Alpha:Ten Forward for a day or so before we start to make sure no one will overreact if we make this change :p. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:40, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) I just saw the message on User:DataMA (sorry for the delay). I assume, sort order should be "Blahblah, List of" or article "List of Blahblah"? Otherwise, all Lists will be sorted for "L" like "List of". -- Florian - ✍ talk 09:33, 2 May 2005 (UTC) For comparisson, I started an example categorize-thread of a few articles, as you can see in Category:Lists and . If this is o.k. I can go categorize all 260 articles (less redirects). -- Florian - ✍ talk 09:54, 2 May 2005 (UTC) :"List of..." articles are going to be moved after categorization ("List of Andorians" -> "Andorians", for example), so a sort key as suggested isn't really necessary in my opinion. -- Cid Highwind 10:09, 2 May 2005 (UTC) "list format" You changed a listing I fiddled with at Elizabeth Cutler, removing "Strange New World" from alongside the ENT: to a carriage return below it. You referred to comformation to "list format"; but it has been my observation that that listing format with the indention after the series is relatively new and unimplemented elsewhere. I rode the SNW listing next to the series listing to shorten the list and hopefully without exacting any cost to clarity and understanding. Just wondering if you changed it to conform to a Manual of Style reference (or something akin to it), or because the change made it better (easier to understand, clarity, etc). I'm not being accusatory as it may seem easy to misinterpret this question as (especially impersonally as it is online), I just want understanding and clarity to ensure I don't make any more superfluously unnecessary or incorrect changes. — THOR 03:20, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) :Oh, I just find it preferable to separate that link onto a separate level than the "series" link (ENT) -- it makes it clearer that all the episodes belong to the series they are sub-listed to. Just explained it in the summary field that i was adjusting the list format -- the Manual of Style doesn't recommend anything for this, but i started formatting lists like that to solve a problem we had a lengthy discussion about a year ago -- whether to continuously link ENT over and over again in a list, which we decided in a discussion to continue, but then you started removing the style, correctly because styles conflict with each other, since arent supposed to link anything repeatedly -- i decided it would prevent repetition by only listing the series name once. :I just wrote that summary field note to say i was setting it to my personal preference for how a list like that should look -- it's fine that you felt it as an invitation to discuss it with me. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 03:38, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) Article Tense * I've been looking through are various policies but cannot seem to find any established rules on article tense (past, present, future). The examples I've seen used in the guidelines show both past and present, and I've noticed most articles around here are in past tense - as are the ones I typically write. I noticed that User:Mark 2000 had a concern about this, and I thought I would ask you about the scenario. --Gvsualan 07:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) ** I believe a general consensus for past-tense was reached in discussion -- however, policy pages are slow to follow discussion sometime, so I'm not sure where this ended up getting added. If you and I discuss this with a few other administrators and archivists, I'm sure we can find a way to disseminate this style policy. I think Ten Forward might be the best place to do this. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 07:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC) Images? Why were new versions of my images Image:Operation Return 1.jpg and Image:AdmiralCoburn.jpg uploaded? They seemed fine to me... -- Dmsdbo 15:13, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :A lot of users have been asking for a general initiative to fix images that are so dark they can hardly be seen. :I had trouble making out what the pictures were supposed to show on a couple monitors, so I brightened them up a little. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:15, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Weird! They looked perfect on my laptop -- straight off the DVD. The quality hopefully didn't drop -- that's why I changed the Operation Return pic. -- Dmsdbo 15:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :Check out for a gallery of how different pictures line up in reference to contrast and brightness -- you'll see the problematic ones standing out. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC) As of yet, your new uploads have not appeared, and my versions still look perfectly fine. Hmm...I guess I'll have to wait until later. -- Dmsdbo 15:24, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :Try hitting f5 or CTRL f5 -- you're often looking at an old cached page when you load images. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:28, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks, it worked. The Admiral Coburn is definately an improvement. Alas, I can't say I love the new Operation Returm, but it's the way to go in interests of visibility. -- Dmsdbo 15:33, 5 May 2005 (UTC) :If you wanted to get a higher resolution cap, peraps we could increase the visibility without washing it out so much -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 15:41, 5 May 2005 (UTC) ::How so? -- Dmsdbo 15:53, 5 May 2005 (UTC) Voyager VI Image Hi, thanks for trying to load the Voyager VI image to replace the Voyager 2 image that is already there. The image may have not been loaded properly though, since the original Voyager 2 image (slightly distorted) is still there. May you check it out? Thanks again! --Egan Loo 05:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC) :The image uploaded fine -- you just have the old image in your cache. Try reloading. -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 06:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC) Starfleet ranks I'm sorry. I was in a bad mood following the end of Enterprise. I'm a wikipedia editor, and as such, I knew better than to do that. It won't happen again. T'Play(talk) 15:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC) Related Changes Page Problem Captain Mike, having interacted with you once or twice before (I think), and seeing that we should contact administrators about possible bugs, I wanted to mention that I've noticed errors lately (for the past several weeks, actually) when you click on the "Related changes" link on the left of the pages... the page comes up, but there's the black text across the background listing a bunch of errors or warnings (I can't make them out very well due to the black on dark background issue, plus the fact that the rest of the page overlays them). Sorry if you're the wrong person to report this to, but hopefully you can pass it on to whoever needs to get it. Thanks --umrguy42 18:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Reverting pages Hi, sorry to waste your time but can only administrators revert pages or can anyone do it? Excelsior 20:19, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)